Web Version: [link removed]
----------------------------------------










[link removed]


[link removed]

In the past few years, unions have gained newfound momentum. Major labor strikes have grabbed headlines and union membership has seen a modest bump. But one question remains: Are stronger unions actually delivering better outcomes for workers?

A new paper from Mercatus scholars Liya Palagashvili and Revana Sharfuddin digs into this very question. The research takes a hard look at the data and asks whether the perceived benefits of unionization align with the reality workers are experiencing.


Palagashvili and Revana's findings challenge some long-held assumptions. Union advocates often point to higher wages and better benefits as key wins. The paper suggests that the broader economic picture is more complicated. Increased union power can sometimes lead to unintended consequences, such as higher costs for employers, fewer job opportunities, and less flexibility in the workplace.


One of the most surprising data points is that union strength is not a consistent predictor of worker well-being across industries. In some sectors, powerful unions have secured significant wage gains. In others, the effects are negligible or even negative. When unions behave like monopolies, collective gains can come at the expense of long-term prospects. If that’s the case, what benefit are union members really receiving for their dues?


Liya and Revana also underscore the importance of considering market dynamics. In highly competitive industries, union-driven wage hikes can lead to higher prices for consumers and, in some cases, job cuts or outsourcing. The paper highlights a potential risk: "The unintended consequence is that while some workers may see a bump in pay, others might lose their jobs altogether."

So, what’s the takeaway? As policymakers and labor leaders continue to push for stronger union protections, our labor market research suggests that it’s worth pausing to ask: Are these efforts actually helping workers, or are they creating new challenges?


Read the full paper
[link removed]
here and explore more of Liya’s work on labor policy and economic outcomes
[link removed]
at Mercatus .

mailto:[email protected]?subject=
Ben Brophy
Director of Marketing

Mercatus Center at George Mason University

Topics & Issues



Charles Blahous outlines
[link removed]
how DOGE can improve Social Security —not by chasing fraud, but by targeting inefficiencies in the program’s benefit design.


Alden Abbott explains
[link removed]
how new US trade agreements —starting with the recent US-UK deal—could drive economic growth by targeting anticompetitive regulatory barriers, not just tariffs.


Veronique de Rugy critiques
[link removed]
President Trump’s 2026 budget as a rhetorical nod to small government that ultimately preserves big spending, growing deficits, and avoids needed entitlement reform.


Donald Boudreaux pushes back on claims that the
[link removed]
recent GDP decline is a statistical fluke, arguing that it’s a clear warning sign of real economic trouble driven by protectionist trade policies. He and Phil Gramm expand on this in their new book, "
[link removed]
The Triumph of Economic Freedom ."


Interested in joining us? Check out our
[link removed]
open roles at Mercatus .









You’re receiving this email because you signed up for This Week at Mercatus newsletter. If you’d prefer not to receive emails, you can
[link removed]
update your preferences .

[link removed]
Manage Preferences |
[link removed]
Privacy Policy


[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]






----------------------------------------
This email was sent by: Mercatus Center
3434 Washington Blvd., 4th Floor,
Arlington, VA, 22201 USA

Privacy Policy: [link removed]
Update Profile: [link removed]
Manage Subscriptions: [link removed]
Unsubscribe: [link removed]